There are too many people in the government who have become intolerant to criticism. If the public voices an opinion, it is invariably incorrect; if the media take a particular angle or line, we are accused of being negative or having agendas.
What we should be doing, according to a number of ministers and their sidekicks, is applauding everything the government does and being grateful for the fact they are doing it for us. We are living in an age where probing questions are seen as an unnecessary inconvenience and where any kind of real journalism is an obstacle to governance. This is a worrying scenario.
A comment by Austin Gatt in an open and candid interview today (pages 10-11) sums up the sentiments of many of his colleagues. Reacting to our front page story last week, which covered the latest transport reform announcement, the minister said: “The media had to latch on to something negative and is picking on tourism and the park and ride system. It’s ridiculous.”
We, of course, laid out all the facts in the story – from the revised fares to operating times – and we believe there is much to commend in attempting to reform a sector that has long been inefficient and unwieldy.
If it works (and surely we must be forgiven a little scepticism given past experience), bus services will improve beyond recognition, buses will be more environmentally friendly and more people are likely to make use of the service. Which is all good stuff.
However, that does not mean certain statements do not give cause for concern. Aside from Dr Gatt announcing that the park and ride will no longer be free and that parking fees in Valletta must go up, it is his statement that the government intends to tackle private car use that jars. Not as a matter of principle, since in an ideal world we would get as many cars off the road as possible, but as a matter of practice.
By using comparisons with other countries to support its argument in this regard, the government seems to be overlooking two important points:
It mentions large capital cities that have no relation to our realities; and second, it is not adequately stressing that before talking about removing a car culture these countries first took steps to provide alternatives for shoppers and commuters.
There is no point using London as an example in relation to Malta when somewhere like Cambridge is much closer to the mark.
Over the years it has been necessary to reduce traffic that goes through this relatively small university city. But before this was done, the council constructed five huge park and ride sites at convenient geographical points (which can be used at a very reasonable cost).
For those who wish to gain access to the city centre in a hurry, there are three multi-storey car parks slap bang in the middle. This aside from a train station and a few direct bus routes that do not have to make use of clogged-up main roads.
This has provided a good mix of public and private transport users that has not come at a significant cost to either. Because the point is straightforward: give people an efficient system and they will use it if it suits their needs.
Burden them with costs and poor alternatives, and they will resent it – even, as much as the government does not like the idea, criticise it.